|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Criminal Mischief (misdemeanor) |
Sentence: |
20 days |
Years Imprisoned: |
0.05 |
Year Crime: |
2015 |
Year Convicted: |
2015 |
Year Cleared: |
2018 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
New York |
County or Region of Crime: |
Richmond |
City of Crime: |
New York City |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Emilio Toro was wrongly convicted on October 19, 2015 of misdemeanor criminal mischief in the fourth degree in Richmond County (New York City), New York. Toro's prosecution under New York Penal Law § 145.00 (1) was based on the allegation that he slapped a woman "in the face, causing her annoyance and alarm, and to fear for her physical safety, as a result of which the woman's cell phone had dropped to the floor and its screen had shattered." Toro waived prosecution by information and pled guilty. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Toro then obtained legal advice that he had not committed criminal mischief. Toro appealed on the basis the accusatory instrument (information) failed to allege the essential element that he intended to damage the woman's cell phone. As a consequence of Toro pleading guilty and waiving prosecution by information, he had to establish that the charge against him was facially insufficient and constituted a jurisdictional defect. The State conceeded in its response to Toro's appeal that he did not intend to damage the "victim's" phone, and the information did not allege that he did. On June 29, 2018 a three-judge panel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Dept, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Dist. unanimously vacated Toro's conviction and ordered dismissal of the charge against him because of insufficiency of the information to which he pled guilty. The Court's ruling stated: "...there were no factual allegations from which it can even be inferred that defendant's conscious objective was to damage the complainant's phone. Thus, the mens rea requirement of intent for establishing a violation of Penal Law § 145.00 (1) was not sufficiently pleaded. Consequently, even when the complaint is given "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" [] the count charging defendant with criminal mischief in the fourth degree was facially insufficient, since it failed to allege "facts of an evidentiary character" [] supporting or tending to support that charge or demonstrating "reasonable cause" [] to believe that defendant had committed that offense. ... There would be little penological purpose in remitting the case for further proceedings on the remaining count of the accusatory instrument, harassment in the second degree [] since that count is a violation and defendant has already served a 20-day jail sentence []. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we dismiss the entire accusatory instrument ... Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed." [ People v Toro (Emilio) 2018 NY Slip Op 28208 (Appellate Term, Second Department, June 29, 2018)]" |
Conviction Caused By: |
Prosecution's Information failed to allege Toro committed the crime of criminal mischief. |
Innocence Proved By: |
"On June 29, 2018 a three-judge panel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Dept, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Dist. unanimously vacated Toro's conviction and ordered dismissal of the charge against him because of insufficiency of the information to which he pled guilty. The Court's ruling stated: "...there were no factual allegations from which it can even be inferred that defendant's conscious objective was to damage the complainant's phone. Thus, the mens rea requirement of intent for establishing a violation of Penal Law § 145.00 (1) was not sufficiently pleaded. Consequently, even when the complaint is given "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" [] the count charging defendant with criminal mischief in the fourth degree was facially insufficient, since it failed to allege "facts of an evidentiary character" [] supporting or tending to support that charge or demonstrating "reasonable cause" [] to believe that defendant had committed that offense. ... There would be little penological purpose in remitting the case for further proceedings on the remaining count of the accusatory instrument, harassment in the second degree [] since that count is a violation and defendant has already served a 20-day jail sentence []. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we dismiss the entire accusatory instrument ... Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed." [ People v Toro (Emilio) 2018 NY Slip Op 28208 (Appellate Term, Second Department, June 29, 2018)]" |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Male |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
Hispanic |
Information Source 1: |
"People v Toro (Emilio) 2018 NY Slip Op 28208 (Appellate Term, Second Department, June 29, 2018) (Vacating conviction and ordering dismissal of charges because Information failed to allege Toro had criminal intent.)" |
Information Location 1: |
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-term-second-department/2018/2018-ny-slip-op-28208.html |
Information Source 2: |
|
Information Location 2: |
|
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org